Marksmanship Mediocrity

I had an incredible opportunity about a year ago – to leave full time law enforcement, and to begin overseeing the development of a new range and training facility. While it was difficult to give up the camaraderie and excitement, it was an opportunity I couldn’t pass up.

Previously, most of the training I was involved with I either ran – or had a say in how the training was developed or executed. However in my new position, I suddenly had the opportunity to simply observe other instructors running training for their agencies. In only a few months time, I quickly grew frustrated with what I was seeing – and in many ways, this experience is what prompted me to start writing again.

While I had often lamented about sub-par law enforcement training before, I was startled by how widespread the acceptance of mediocrity in officer performance on the range had become. It is almost universal – nearly every single agency I have came across suffered from this acceptance of “marksmanship mediocrity.”

The target at left is an example of “marksmanship mediocrity,” which could have come from any of a dozen or so that has passed through our facility. I don’t share it to pick on one agency, nor will I name them. I provided this same feedback to them, and they were very open about making improvements. I share it because I hope this may help others in a similar position.

The target at left is the “FBI-Q” target. It is a terrible target to utilize for tactical training, though unfortunately, was adopted by a number of states as their official qualification targets. While its general shape may somewhat mimic the torso of a human being, the target has no score-able areas or lines that even closely mimic human anatomy or encourage marksmanship.

I have often heard the phrase in police training “every round you fire has a potential lawsuit attached,” yet this target suggests this agency accepts that as a fact, rather than trying to mitigate it. Again – this agency is not alone, this is unfortunately the standard in law enforcement firearms training today.

The problem with accepting marksmanship mediocrity is that in the real-world, off-center hits on a human being are not likely to stop a threat. Without getting into a deep discussion of tactical anatomy, there are only certain places on the human body where rounds will have the greatest change of quickly incapacitating a human (stopping a threat) – and that is the upper thoracic cavity (heart, lungs, major blood vessels), and the cranial vault / CNS (brain, spinal cord). The reality is more than 50% of the rounds on this target are not likely to cause rapid incapacitation. Furthermore, almost a dozen rounds have missed the target completely, which would not only be ineffective against a live target, but also a potential liability to any bystanders.

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard officers walk up to a target after a course of fire, and hear them or their instructor look at the target and say something like “not bad, that would give him something to think about.” Perhaps this is out of self-justification or a weak attempt to boost the shooter’s self-esteem, but gut-shots or arm hits are not likely to make a motivated attacker stop and “think about it.” In fact, they might not even notice. In the course of my career I have seen many people shot in the leg, the arm, gut – even the face, who didn’t die, didn’t stop and in some cases, were even able to drive themselves to the hospital.

Exacerbating the problem I frequently see LE training sessions where:
-Multiple officers share targets (so officers can’t tell who hit and who missed)
-Targets that are never scored, pasted, or replaced
-Targets that are always the same (no photo realistic targets, never showing bodies in positions other than square to the officer, full torso exposed)

This target overlays an FBI Q target, plus additional reduced scoring zones ontop of a photo-realistic target. Compare this to the plain FBI-Q target above. What hits on that target would actually be effective? Available at targetsonline.com

What can you do about it?

1) Select a variety of targets which more accurately represent human anatomy, and have smaller primary scoring zones. Not every target has to be photo-realistic, or even a torso. Throw some B8s into the mix now and then to raise the marksmanship standards. Even an IDPA or IPSC target (with the A zone cut in half – use the upper half) is quite adequate for encouraging officers to hit a smaller area in the upper-thoracic region of the torso. The VTAC is a good target that actually shows the human autonomy and helps shooters learn “landmarks” on the body so they know where to aim to drop rounds into vital areas (don’t forget mechanical offset with the carbine!)

2) Always be evaluating marksmanship. Every round that goes down range should be evaluated. It doesn’t matter if that’s during a qualification, in the shoot house, during a weapon-manipulation drill, or in a force on force scenario. Even if the primary objective isn’t marksmanship, incorporate it as an objective. “Practice makes permanent.” Every single round fired is a repetition, and if we give our students sloppy reps, that’s what they will learn. Besides, our training time is limited so this allows us to hit more training objectives in the same amount of time. The small amount of time it may take to evaluate and paste a target is well worth the benefit.

3) Score and paste targets often. Don’t let shooters use the same target without pasting them in between. You can “mark” rounds on target with a Sharpie, but after a dozen or so rounds are fired, it becomes much more difficult to see where new rounds are falling, especially with half-way decent shooters. Instead, use masking tape. Give each shooter a roll and have them set it on the floor in front of their target. Every time targets are inspected, they paste the holes in their targets. If you are shooting a lot of rounds, and that takes too much time, you can negative tape, meaning you only tape rounds outside the primary scoring zone.

Develop courses of fire which score hits based on their location on the target. In other words, peripheral hits don’t score as high as center-mass hits. Don’t be afraid to write scores on targets for everyone to see – especially in higher-performing units like SWAT. While some administrators may fear to potential of “publicly humiliating” one of their officers, I’ve found most of those officers will appreciate the honest feedback, instead of having smoke blown up their asses like they’re used to – especially if your instructors follow up with training to help them improve. Being evaluated in front of one’s peers can be very motivating – besides, when an officer actually winds up in a use of force situation, their performance will be evaluated by many more, in much more detail than a few of their co-workers on the range.

4) Never accept mediocrity. When evaluating an officer’s target, instead of shrugging off that extremity hit, let that officer know they can do better. It can be as simple as saying: “Well, you didn’t miss, but we want those rounds in areas that are more likely to stop the bad guy.” Or, “Not bad, but let’s work on getting them all in there next time.” I get it, sometimes you need to build up a shooter’s confidence, especially one who struggles – and you don’t even need to scold them for a poor shot on target, but don’t delude them into believing sub-standard hits will save their life on the street – because they won’t.

5) Stop making excuses – start holding people accountable. I often hear officers and agencies make excuses for poor marksmanship: “We only shoot twice a year….” or “We are just a part-time team.” I recently had the opportunity at “Friends of Pat” partake in a CQB shoot-house course put on by Chuck Pressburg, a former US special operations soldier who was involved in countless operations against enemy combatants in the GWOT. I was amazed at the standard of marksmanship he expected from a bunch of street cops like us. Rounds only receive top scoring value if they were in the vital areas – even rounds that struck an arm, or a weapon in front of the suspect’s chest on our photo-realistic targets score lower. This actually makes perfect sense, as those rounds are far less likely to be effective when they hit their intended target, if they aren’t deflected or stopped completely.

At first I laughed when I thought about trying to apply those standards to officers at my agency – but the reality is, a crackhead in my town, shot by an officer who only trains twice a year, has the same anatomy as an ISIS terrorist who is shot by an SF assaulter who trains every single day. Peripheral shots against either one will not be effective, so why should we accept mediocre hits on our bad guy targets, just because we train less?

Likewise, should we accept a lower standard of accuracy when shooting low-light? Lighting conditions don’t affect terminal ballistics, so I would argue the answer is “no.”

Now perhaps it is unrealistic to expect the same level of performance on the range from a domestic LEO as an SF soldier engaged in combat operations – but that doesn’t mean we should ignore the reality of what it actually takes to stop a bad guy with bullets. Of course if you are a SWAT team that has any inclinations of performing hostage-rescue operations, your officer’s marksmanship skills, among their ability to perform other task, must be exceptional.

At the end of the day – whether you are a shooter or an instructor, you have the ability to determine what type of standard you or your students will be held to. It is easy to shrug off that peripheral hit as “good enough,” but it is intellectually lazy and it won’t cut it on the street. Don’t set yourself or your people up for failure, don’t delude them into thinking their mediocre performance on the range will somehow work out for them on the street. Encourage them to pursue a higher standard.